Slashdot Mirror
Intel Predicts a $7 Trillion Self-Driving Future Where Over a Million Lives Will Be Part of the 'Passenger Economy' (theverge.com)
Intel has released a new study that predicts a $7 trillion annual revenue stream from the emerging passenger economy. In the report, Intel says that the companies that don't prepare for self-driving risk failure or extinction. Additionally, the report finds that over a half a million lives could be saved by self-driving cars over just one decade. The Verge reports: The study, prepared by Strategy Analytics, predicts autonomous vehicles will create a massive economic opportunity that will scale from $800 billion in 2035 (the base year of the study) to $7 trillion by 2050. An estimated 585,000 lives could be saved due to autonomous vehicles between 2035 and 2045, the study predicts. This âoepassenger economy,â as Intel is calling it, includes the value of the products and services derived from fully autonomous vehicles as well as indirect savings such as time. Autonomous technology will drive change across a range of industries, the study predicts, the first green shoots of which will appear in the business-to-business sector. These autonomous vehicles will first appear in developed markets and will reinvent the package delivery and long-haul transportation sectors, says Strategy Analytics president Harvey Cohen, who co-authored the study. This will relieve driver shortages, a chronic problem in the industry, and account for two-thirds of initial projected revenues. One of the bolder predictions is that public transportation as we know it today â" trains, subways, light rails, and buses -- will be supplanted, or at least radically changed, by the rise of on-demand autonomous vehicle fleets. The study argues that people will flock to suburbs as population density rises in city centers, pushing commute times higher and âoeoutstripping the ability of public transport infrastructure to fully meet consumer mobility needs.â
It'll be far too crowded
Than most people seem to think. Even 2035 is being too optimistic.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just what we need - more humans destroying the world and adding carbon to our atmosphere. As if we didn't already have a calamitous effect on the climate cycle, now we're going to try to remove one of the few remaining checks on our explosive population growth? Call me a jerk, but I don't see how this is a good thing. We should impose strict requirements on the new self-driving vehicles - renewable fuel ONLY. That we we can solve one problem without creating another and for once, just maybe make some real progress towards creating a sustainable relationship between our species and planet earth where up until now it's been strictly one-sided.
Who's going to pay when these cars get in wrecks?
clean coal, covfefe
Oh, goody. So they expect us to shell over (on average) one tenth of our gross income for self-driving gadgets? (world GDP is 78*10^12 according to Wikipedia)
Start greasing the politician's assholes to force us by law to buy stuff, otherwise...
Cabs without drivers = no one to ensure passengers don't vomit, urinate or defecate in them. Drunks will LOVE it!
The study argues that people will flock to suburbs as population density rises in city centers, pushing commute times higher...
Wow what genius. I guess the author hasn't spent much time in say Los Angeles, Houston, or Chicago in the last 40 years.
criminal liability as well + tickets both to the driver and to the car. also turning it over to a real person with 1 sec to crash does not move the blame to the person.
Hit and run is an criminal case.
Some photo speeding tickets to go to driver. Most other ones are like red light ones go to the car.
Tickets from a cop other then parking go to the driver.
"Down here in Motorcity we have a motto: live fast, live free."
Eventually we will lose both of these if we keep letting others take more control.
Fuck this self driving bullshit and Fuck downtown.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
By the sponsor, who wants to sell a buttload of chips and advanced systems. So the people paid to do the report are not going to present the "conservative" scenario.
"Intel says that the companies that don't prepare for self-driving risk failure or extinction."
Anytime someone threatens you with being 'left behind' its because they are trying to scare you into doing things their way. Fuck off Intel.
If putting 1 million lives "into the passenger economy" can save 1/2 million lives from traffic accidents - does that mean that half of these people would have died in traffic accidents? Wow. /s
It's 2017, for chrissake.
And if you really just don't want to ever support it, then at the very least pop up a warning when one hits submit on stories or posts that contain non-ascii utf8 and ask for confirmation to submit the content, alerting a person who might not have realized that the post contained such characters, particularly since the fact that some characters in it are somehow special is not typically obvious until after the text has been posted, because the html textarea shows such characters entirely normally.
that this won't really happen at all? Is it possible that all this talk about never-ending progress and growth, green, or otherwise, is an expression of cargo-cult psychology?
Intel has released a new study that predicts a $7 trillion annual revenue stream from the emerging passenger economy.
Remember, that money has to come from somewhere. There are a lot of people that drive for a living that will suddenly be out of a job. 7 trillion for some company to provide transportation-as-a-service, but you'll have millions of people out of work as a result.
I'm not saying self driving cars are good or bad, I'm just saying we as a society better prepare for this. That's a lot of able bodied yet suddenly unemployed people for the economy to absorb.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The study argues that people will flock to suburbs as population density rises in city centers
This is just your typical Silicon Valley thinking, where the only two options are sprawl and Manhattan. In reality, very few city centers will ever get population densities that high, and those that do will still be surrounded by the rest of those cities and inner-ring suburbs.
For all the talk about how "hollowed out" Detroit is, its population density is double that of Phoenix, and almost double the density of Dallas or Houston. Most American cities could double or triple in size without being remotely crowded. If you put every person in the entire world into Texas, it still wouldn't be as crowded as Manhattan.
>> relieve driver shortages, a chronic problem in the industry
ELIMINATE driver PAYROLL, a chronic problem in the industry
FTFY
Scab-scum. An historian wonders, has nobody yet smashed your face ?
Aside from the fact that just about any self-driving algorithm is better than a human behind the wheel distracted by texting, I personally welcome owning a vehicle with self-driving capability - especially if it means I can focus on working on projects on my way to work.
I occasionally have to drive from my location to my largest client in Denver, which is a 6.5 hour drive for me. Whether I drive or take a plane, it's a wash for me. Going to the airport, getting on the plane, flying, getting a rental car and driving to the site vs. just driving there is roughly the same time. If that time could be spent productively working on my laptop while the car drove itself the entire way it would be frigging awesomeness.
In fact, if I had that ability, I would far rather drive to my clients (I actually like road trips) and just work along the way. I personally have nothing but contempt for the airlines and all the bullshit TSA crap that goes along with it.
Also, telcos and other organizations would be stupid to ignore building out their networks better along all the major highways linking all the major metropolitan areas. If I had awesome connectivity along the routes I would drive all the time? My SUV would become my mobile office and I would be in "work heaven" :-)
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
I'm not standing in line to buy one. Sounds more like flying cars or hover bikes to me.
We don't need to save any more lives. The planet is overcrowded already. We need to find more ways to reduce the population.
You will only move about if the government permits you to do so. Sound crazy? Be wary of governments that want to charge you an "exit tax" to leave the country.
they have it backwards. not enough are dying, fast enough, by vehicular 'accidents'. theres far too many human things on this planet. cull! cull! cull!
OK, so now those drivers are out of work. You think that's the only unemployment?
Those drivers will not use mechanics, nor buy food/drink while on the road, won't spend money here or there while driving. This means less money for truck stops, less revenue, and more layoffs in many other places.
But wait, those people will not spend money on things they currently spend money, and that means more layoffs in other areas.
But don't worry! We can always retrain them and then have them try to find jobs without experience in the new field. We all know there are no entry level jobs requiring 0 experience, so game over for those people.
At least cronies will be enriched!
We will likely never have a significant number of self driving cars. Once we have autonomous vehicles, there are plenty of better ways to transport people.
I wouldn't be so fast about assuming that to be universally true. I think what will happen is that autonomous technology will incrementally get added to existing cars and then eventually we will have a lot of self driving vehicles on the road. Not all of them will be completely self driving for some time to come if ever but probably most of them will incorporate the tech over the coming decades.
If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person?
Because it is unlikely to come to pass that you will be able to call a vehicle on demand in a lot of places. Furthermore the type of vehicle needed at any given time can vary wildly. There are times when a little 1 or 2 seat car with no storage is fine. Other times you might need to haul a bunch of stuff home from the lumber yard and need a very different sort of vehicle. Furthermore what do you do when there isn't a car immediately available. Most places in the USA you cannot simply walk out your front door and hail a cab even today. What might make sense in Manhattan won't make much sense in rural Kansas. Don't get me wrong, I think ride sharing will be a thing just like taxis are today, but I don't think people are going to stop owning cars any time in the foreseeable future.
Why would I go to the grocery store when the grocery store can bring the food to me?
Because you want to pick out your groceries. I don't know if you've ever spent any time at a meat counter or in the produce section but there is pretty wide variability in the products. I don't really trust someone else to not pick me a bunch of pre-wilted lettuce or meat that isn't sketchy. Sure you can order commodity boxed goods with reasonable confidence but not everything. Plus I don't need a self driving car to have groceries brought to me - companies like Amazon are already dealing with that problem. We go to the grocery store because it is economically efficient to do so. I don't see self driving cars solving that problem.
Autonomous vehicles also means that lawn mowers can be centrally located, they can drive to your house, mow your lawn and return to a central location.
How would this be cheaper than what we currently have? You are adding a huge amount of complexity to a rather primitive and cheap device. Are you talking about lawn care services or just the little push mower people keep in the garage?
Complex robots of all kinds become more practical if they are able to transport themself.
True but that complexity has to come with an economic benefit attached. It's not just a technology problem, it's also an economic problem. Self driving cars are potentially viable because they can eliminate some pretty substantial opportunity costs in regards to human transport. It's not so clear that something like a lawn mower would carry similar benefits.
By 2025 the market for Itanium servers will total 22 trillions a year (* according to low end figures of the current projections), 7 trillions in Itanium for cars will come in addition to that. This points out to Itanium overtaking China as the world's first economy in about 8 years.
585,000 lives saved between 2035 and 2045 = 58.8k lives saved per year.
Current worldwide traffic fatalities are about 1.25 million per year.
That's a 5% reduction. For an outlay that starts at $800 billion a year and scales to $7 trillion.
How about spending a fraction of that money on real driver education, training, and enforcement?
Oh, I forgot -- robots are cool. Nevermind.
Headline should read, "Intel are looking for investors for self-driving vehicle technologies." By saying, "if you don't invest with us, the sky will fall in."
TIFTFY
It's certainly probable that self-driving cars will fill an economic role, but its difficult to say how big they'll be.
After all, VR and the Apple Watch were supposed to have big impacts, and they haven't so far.
This isn't a study, it's a WAG (Wild A$$ guess). There's way to many variables to even attempt to imagine the economy in 2050
*Population by then will likely hit food shortages, (edible bio-mass in the oceans is dropping significantly year after year), temp changes, acidification, over fishing are contributors
* fresh water shortages,
* global warming will change the earth, it's projected that by 2050 5Bn people will face entirely new climates (again, what will that do to plant and animal habitat) , parts of the US will have over 200 days per year of +100 degree temps.
* Automation may displace 50%-80% of all workers. Who will be the consumers of the goods and services if 1/2 the population+ isn't working and has no income?
Sure, none of these are certain, but collectively they will create unforeseen changes and alternatives rendering prognosticators today simpletons. Or, don't believe everything you read.
7 trillion dollar industry divided by 1 million customers = 7 million per customer. Math totally checks out, this will save a ton compared to cars.
Oh wait, did they account for the massive riots when they put every moron who can't do more than drive a delivery truck out of business? This could translate to 7 quintilian dollars when you account for the need of the defense industry to more heavily arm the police to cope and start setting up concentration camps.
Is ALWAYS about how much profit X company is going to make if everyone simply complies with their draconian plans?
Eat my steaming raw shit Intel, I'll be driving myself around you, thank you.
And then everyone will take their flying cars back to their homes in the sky, and then they'll arrive via their vacuum tube elevators, and then their robotic maids will 3d print their food to their liking, and then they'll take their pets on a walk outside on top of a threadmill suspended 10000 feet in the air with no guardrails
Predictions predictions. I'm not sure why analysts and companies keep doing this, but seems it's either veiled interests or just pure ignorance on how culture grows with technology. Predictions should not be made by people who can't see past their own area of expertise.
You know the side effect of millions of people receiving the boot because their jobs have been replaced by automation? Record levels of unemployment followed by recession and then depression. You know the side effect of recession and depression? People not having money to pay for anything. You know the side effect of people not having money to pay for anything? Industries not having money to invest on automation. People being unable to sustain themselves. Major public revolt and dissent. Chaos.
We won't have a major uniform and complete shift in just 2 decades or so, because that would provoke an auto-collapse. Either we have gradual changes and implementation along changes in society and culture that enables accomodation of new tech, or we'll risk going back to medieval times. If these futurologists keeps thinking with only tech advances in mind, we are no better in predicting stuff than people in the 60s thinking about the year 2000.
Intel predicts great future for something that Intel has invested tens of billions in.
If you consider the amount money spent on technology over nearly sixty years, crap still happens with aircraft.